Title: Why women are not smarter than men and should not be in charge, as the liberal American media claims

I've never understood some things in America. In particular these two things:

1) Why it is that in America, you are only allowed to say that women are smarter than men, but you can't say that men are smarter than women? It seems as though America considers women to be smarter than men? On what basis? It's never been explained.

2) Also, women seem to be in charge of the household in American families. Husbands have to call their wife "The Boss". And the wife has the power to make her husband "sleep in the doghouse" if he behaves badly. But this goes against established tradition. For thousands of years, the man has been the head of the household. Why does America wish to overturn such a long-standing natural order? On what basis? What is liberal America's logic and rationale for this? They seem to provide none.

Let's go over both. First, if women are smarter than men, then why do men overall score HIGHER on IQ tests than women? (http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx) How come there are no female equivalents of Einstein, Leonardo DaVinci, or Mozart? How come there are no great female leaders in history? (at least on the same level of great male leaders) Why do women get into car accidents more than men do? Why are men better at investing than women? (http://www.businessinsider.com/infograp ... men-2012-3) How come they always suck at chess and hate the game (except for Russian and Slavic women)? Why do women hate logic and even admit it? Smart people do not hate logic. It seems the female brain is just not hardwired for logic.

Given the above, how can women be smarter than men? Therefore, this "women are smarter than men" rule seems to be a religious doctrine in America that's treated as a given, without any justification or logic. Kind of like how Christians claim that the Bible is God's word and absolutely inerrant, as a given, without logical justification. Their only rationale is that "if everyone says it, it must be true, no matter how nonsensical".

Such bizarre beliefs seem to be a religion in America without any logical justification. Bad beliefs like this have always been signs of social decay that brought down empires as great as the Roman Empire. I wish America would heed this history lesson.

The truth is, men and women are different. They are smart in different ways and good at different things. Women are smarter at certain things like fashion, interior design, cooking, raising babies, etc. But men are smarter in other things. Men are more logical, while women are more intuitive. Men are natural conquerors, pioneers and explorers, while women are better nurturers. Men are better in creative and intellectual pursuits, inventions, and leadership roles. But women prefer to conform and follow. They are nurturers who provide support, love and companionship to supplement the emotional needs of their man.

Everyone knows these things. They are all too obvious. Why can't liberals and feminists accept this reality that men and women are different and suited for different things? What's wrong with them? Instead, they resort to lies. For example, feminists claim that women can do anything that men can do. But if that's so, then:

- How come 99 percent of all major accomplishments and inventions in the world were done by men? All women can accomplish better is getting more likes on Facebook. lol
- How come every time I get my car's oil changed, it's always a man doing it? Never a woman?
- How come when I get a car fixed, it's always a man doing it?
- How come when I see construction workers working outside, they are always men? Why aren't women building houses too?
- How come when I call the plumber, it's always a man that comes?
- How come when there is a strange sound in the dark outside, women always want men to check it out? Why don't they check it out themselves?
- How come there has never been a great female general that has won great military battles against all odds, such as Napoleon's masterful victory at the Battle of Austerlitz? Or Alexander the Great's epic victory at the Battle of Gautemala against a Persian army 4 or 5 times the size of his?
- How come great inventors, painters, and composers throughout history have always been men? Where are the female Mozarts, DaVincis and Einsteins?
- How come professional sports divide men and women into different leagues? Even pro tennis is divided by gender. If men and women were the same, why aren't they playing together on the same teams? Why aren't football teams co-ed?
- Why aren't women going into front lines in battle in the army?
- Why don't women run into burning buildings to try to save lives?

So you see, equality does not mean that men and women are the same. Feminists can't answer or address the questions above. They are totally out of touch with reality and logic, and are either dishonest or delusional. There's no way around it.

All they care about is their hatred for men, and all they see everywhere is the word "misogyny" in everything, which they use as a broad brush to smear everything and everyone they don't like. But it's mostly all in their delusional twisted hate-filled heads.

Also, women are not natural born leaders. They are not suited for leadership roles. Very very few women in history have been good leaders. Mother Nature did not hardwire women to be leaders. Sorry to all the politically correct liberals out there, but that's the truth.

There has never been a great female general in history that has won great battles against all odds, such as Napoleon's masterful victory at the Battle of Austerlitz. Or Alexander the Great's epic victory at the Battle of Gautemala against a Persian army 4 or 5 times the size of his. Women just aren't good at that sort of thing. In fact, they tend to screw up in military strategy.

For example, Queen Cleopatra, the last Pharaoh of Egypt, screwed up her lover Marc Anthony's battle strategy at the Battle of Actium against Caesar Augustus, by giving him bad advice. She persuaded him to fight the battle by sea instead of by land, as his officers wanted. By listening to her, he lost that crucial and pivotal battle. If he had listened to his officers instead, he might have won that battle. So much for female advice on military strategy.

Women tend to be followers and conformists by nature. They care more about what others think and are more affected by popular trends than men are. This is why advertisers and commercials tend to target women more than men, because women are more easily influenceable and programmable due to their nature as followers and conformists. They have no deep inner convictions and principles, and do not think for themselves. To them, truth is determined by whatever is popular and whatever the majority believe, not by reason and logic. These things are obvious. Hence, these traits of women make them better followers than leaders.

What I don't get is why Hollywood tries to portray women as leaders nowadays. Even in action movies, like Resident Evil, the ones in charge are often women. Is Hollywood that stupid, or are they trying to turn everything upside down as part of a nefarious agenda? In the last Snow White movie, for example, they had Kristen Stewart, who played Snow White, lead a military raid on a castle, which was stupid, insulting, unfeminine, nonsensical and out of character for Snow White. Also, when men and women argue, Hollywood always shows the women winning, and when they compete in a board game or sports game, they always have to show the female winning. Why is that, given the fact that in real life, men usually win in such competitions? Why does Hollywood like to show the opposite of what's true?

How do feminists and liberals explain all this? They can't. They are totally out of touch with reality and logic. All they care about is their hatred for men, and all they see everywhere is the word "misogyny" in everything, which they use as a broad brush to smear everything and everyone they don't like. But it's mostly all in their delusional twisted hate-filled heads.

I guess liberals and feminists would argue that women are more mature at an earlier age, and do not start wars like men do. So they are smarter and wiser in that sense. Ok that's a valid point. But it doesn't account for all the above, which indicates that women are not suited for leadership roles, and do not like logic either, but find it boring. Nor does it account for women's immature behavior. For example, women cry and get more emotional suddenly, more than men do. And American women are notorious for starting arguments over trivial things (which men detest) to spice up the drama in their life. It's as if they do not enjoy peace, so if things are too peaceful, they cause trouble by starting arguments and conflicts over unnecessary matters. Hence they are reputed to be "drama queens". This is not mature behavior.

Another thing they'd try to argue is that the reason there are no great female leaders, generals, artists, composers or inventors in history is because women have always been too oppressed to be given opportunity to become such things, or be recognized for their talents and achievements. But this is just a copout. It doesn't explain why there are no such great women in modern America today, where they supposedly have "equal rights" and preferential treatment. Nor does it recognize the fundamental differences between men and women.

Anyhow, continuing on, if women are not naturally suited for leadership roles, then WHY are they considered the head of household in America? Why does an American husband call his wife "The Boss"? If women are not smarter than men, then how can they be "The Boss"? Shouldn't a boss or head of household be smarter and wiser than the rest of the household? How can all this be, when women are nurturers by nature, not leaders? It doesn't make any sense. Liberal America doesn't make sense. It's purely emotional and argumentative, without reason or logic. Stuff like this can only mean that America is majorly F-ed up big time.

For thousands of years, men have been the head of the household and family. Why does America think that it can overturn all this and call it "progress and enlightenment" of culture? What is America smoking? f***ing things up is NOT progressive. Why is America screwing with Mother Nature by trying to reverse the natural gender roles of human beings? America appears to be batshit insane, not only in this area, but in many others as well.

Anyway, sorry for the long rant and grip against liberalism and feminism. I'm just so fed up with how illogical, hypocritical, warped, unnatural, toxic and destructive their ideologies are. They are clearly bringing America down into a moral decay, and are trying to bring down other countries as well, which has got to be stopped.

Last edited by Winston on May 18th, 2014, 6:01 am, edited 13 times in total.

Women seem to be in charge of the household in American families. Husbands have to call their wife "The Boss". And the wife has the power to make her husband "sleep in the doghouse" if he behaves badly. But this goes against established tradition. For thousands of years, the man has been the head of the household. Why does America wish to overturn such a long-standing natural order? On what basis? What is liberal America's logic and rationale for this? They seem to provide none.

Why does America think that it can overturn all this and call it "progress and enlightenment" of culture? What is America smoking? f***ing things up is NOT progressive. Why is America screwing with Mother Nature by trying to reverse the natural gender roles of human beings? America appears to be batshit insane, not only in this area, but in many others as well.

How would AW and liberals answer these questions?

I guess they would argue that women are more mature at an earlier age, and do not start wars like men do. So they are smarter and wiser in that sense. Right?

Another thing they'd try to argue is that the reason there are no great female leaders, generals, artists, composers or inventors in history is because women have always been too oppressed to be given opportunity to become such things, or be recognized for their talents and achievements.

But this is just a copout. It doesn't explain why there are no such great women in modern America today, where they supposedly have "equal rights" and preferential treatment. Nor does it recognize the fundamental differences between men and women.

I would like an explanation for real facts not biased studies or research.

Modern media attempts to blow sunshine on women at the expense of men. Commercials show men as brainless idiots while their wives act "annoyed and frustrated" with the "moron dad/husband."

Most studies favoring women are blatant lies either from unscrupulous Scientists being paid for lying, or from government agendas to make women vote for them, just because there are more women than men.

Men have envisioned / invented / built 99.5% of the items we see /enjoy / experience in our daily lives. To pretend that men are "inferior" to women in any way, when the actual, real-world- evidence paints the exact opposite... would be foolish.

Is There Any Undisputed World Record (Intellectual or Sport) That Women Hold Over Men?

Who is smarter, the lord/lady sitting in his/her castle or the guard dog that keeps away intruders?

Who is smarter, the whore who gets f***ed and pleasured at $500 an hour or the miner who slaves all day and earns $250?

Women are sneaky and thus smarter. They have let stupid dog men create a world of plenty and order. In that world women have control because the woman's skill of pleasure and relaxation are more highly valued.

Luc Furr wrote:Who is smarter, the farmer or the oxen that pulls the plow?

Who is smarter, the lord/lady sitting in his/her castle or the guard dog that keeps away intruders?

Who is smarter, the whore who gets f***ed and pleasured at $500 an hour or the miner who slaves all day and earns $250?

Women are sneaky and thus smarter. They have let stupid dog men create a world of plenty and order. In that world women have control because the woman's skill of pleasure and relaxation are more highly valued.

That is a sage observation...of life in the USA. Systems like that are always self correcting, like the sustainability of poorly designed bridges. It is doomed to collapse.
Most of the world's population still lives in areas where it is GOOD to sleep with the King. Pleasure and relaxation can be had for a song, but strong men are highly sought after.

It's been scientifically proven that more women have average intelligence than either low or high.

Men on the other hand have more examples with either having low end of intelligence or on the higher end and there are less with having just an average intelligence than women.

This is why you don't generally see too many stand-out stellar women in history in comparison to men and you also don't hear of as many women going off the deep end like you do with men. Woman straddle the middle of mediocrity and their nature is to nurture and come to compromises rather than compete. They maybe compete for a mate when they are young but after that its more about compromise and having a go along get along attitude to allow the family to succeed. Yes there are exceptions to this rule and nowadays many women are being conditioned to act like men but historically this is how men and women are intelligence and behavior wise.

On average, males and females have the same median IQ of 100. This is a matter of test construction. IQ tests purposely eliminate questions that lead to sex biases in the score.

Males and females show average differences on subsections of IQ tests. Males are better on some sections, as spatial questions, while females are better on reading and some other verbal skills. The net result is that overall average IQ scores are calculated to balance out for males and females.

Another meaningful difference is in variance. Male IQ is more variable than female IQ. In other words, females tend to cluster around average scores, while males are somewhat more spread out, with more of them scoring at the very high end and the very low end of the IQ scales. This has been cited as a reason why more geniuses like Einstein or Mozart (and also school dropouts) are males.

The many male school dropouts make females seem more successful in high school. But in the workplace, other male skills make them just as successful. Because of dropouts, high school seniors (male and female) have an average IQ of around 105. Those taking SAT tests average around 110 IQ, while those getting a four year college degree have about a 115 IQ. Click for a chart of IQ scores of men in various jobs/ careers.

Why is the average boy's SAT math score slightly higher than the average girl's score? (AP Photo)
Commentary
By JOHN ALLEN PAULOS

Jan. 30, 2005 -- Larry Summers, the president of Harvard University, speculated last month that there might be biological factors that help explain the relatively small number of women who go into careers in mathematics or science. Summers did not say that women who have succeeded in these fields differ from men or that women don't make first class scientists (although the transcript of the meeting hasn't been released so we can't be sure).

What he seems to have said is that the statistical distributions of the test scores of the sexes differ and that these differences may be, at least in part, biological.

That the scores differ is not disputed. For example, on the math SATs, the average boy's score is slightly higher than the average girl's score, but, perhaps more significantly, the variability of boys' scores is greater than that of girls' scores.
The Role of Variability

To appreciate the role of variability, we can imagine 1,000 women taking a math achievement test. Absurdly exaggerating for the sake of clarity, let's stipulate that 200 of them score around 75 on it, 600 of them score around 100, and 200 of them score around 125. In contrast, we can imagine 1,000 men taking the test, but now we stipulate that 200 of them score around 25 on it, 600 of them score around 100, and 200 of them score around 175.

Both groups' scores would average 100, but there is no doubt that the men would be disproportionately represented in institutions of higher learning as well as in institutions of other sorts.

Even with more realistic statistical distributions of talent in which women score at the very highest levels (and, of course, many do), the extremes and not the averages of the distribution often determine how many enter a technical field. Whatever the source and permanence of these distributional differences, nothing in them justifies any sort of discrimination against women, either as individuals or as a group.
So Why the Difference?

So what does bring about the difference in the distribution of scores? Psycho-social factors? Biological differences? Educational practices?

Undoubtedly social conditions play an important role. It can't be denied, for example, that sex discrimination, sometimes overt, but more often subtle, remains a serious problem in many places (especially in university hiring and promotion). Neither can it be denied that because of their socialization very many women simply have no interest in mathematics or science. There is some evidence that the abstraction of mathematics poses more of a social challenge for women than it does a cognitive challenge. For whatever reason women have a relatively greater preference for involvement with others.

And biological differences? Summers' remarks (or, rather, crude versions of them) caused an indignant uproar. But there are many biological differences between the sexes, and there is no reason why these should not extend to matters mathematical. In addition to the SAT and other test data, well-known studies have shown that across cultures and on average men do better in navigating through three-dimensional space and visualizing objects therein.

Other studies suggest that women are better at quick calculation and subitization, telling at a glance how many objects are lying about. Calling for the issue to be studied further does not make one a benighted sexist, and Summers, although he probably should have realized how his remarks would be taken, is certainly nothing of the sort.
Other Considerations

A marginally relevant point is that biological differences leading to a greater likelihood of mathematical talent are not always desirable. Autism and related disorders, for example, strike four times as many boys as girls, and there is some indication that a mild Asperger's syndrome, one of these related conditions, is not rare among research mathematicians.

Neither are psycho-social factors that lead to a greater likelihood of mathematical talent always desirable. It's anecdotal to be sure, but consider the behavior seemingly typical of many successful math and science graduate students. How appealing is subsisting on candy bars, take-out food and coffee while wearing the same clothes for days on end and focusing monomaniacally on some technical detail or other. And how appealing is the jockeying for dominance that often characterizes mathematical and scientific research. Again people vary in their tolerance for such conditions, but arguably proportionally fewer women than men will find them congenial.

Finally, even if it turns out that important biological differences underlie some of the difference in the distributions of mathematical talent, their effect may be quite small compared to the effect of these psycho-social factors. Vanderbilt professor Camilla Benbow, a specialist on gifted children, stresses the mutability of some of these factors. She points out that where there has been a concerted effort to encourage girls in mathematics, the ratio of mathematically high-achieving boys to mathematically high-achieving girls declines considerably.

The bottom line is that we can do much more to induce girls and women to study mathematics. We can make pedagogy and applications more palatable and stress the beauty and utility of the subject as well as its algorithms and calculations. Moreover, whether students of either sex go on to careers in science or not, there is compelling evidence that if they take more math, they will considerably increase their likelihood of finding higher-paying, more rewarding jobs.

- Professor of mathematics at Temple University, John Allen Paulos is the author of best-selling books, including "Innumeracy" and "A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market." His "Who's Counting?" column on ABCNEWS.com appears the first weekend of every month.

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor and stoic philosopher, 121-180 A.D.